is Original sin orthodox?
is Original sin orthodox?
There is nothing so opposed to Christ and His Church as sin, innovative or otherwise. :)
In all seriousness though, could you clarify what you are asking, please?
In Christ,
Bratislav
This question has been touched upon numerous times in various discussions.
Here is a link to a recent post on the topic that I made.
Fr David Moser
Council of Orange (529 AD)
Canons 4-8
CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).
___________________________
See also...
St. Augustine of Hippo on Grace and Free Will: http://ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-05/npnf1-05-40.htm
This is an important canon from the Council of Orange. But it's also worth noting that it doesn't speak of 'original sin' in the sense that such a term is normally defined. It does take care to define the nature of human response to God and actions for repentance as the work first and foremost of God's energy of grace, lest one separate repentance from God's economy for humankind (as routinely happens in history).Originally Posted by abide_above
INXC, Matthew
Dear Matthew,
St. Augustine's conception of 'Original Sin' has always been a troubling one, as far as I understand it, but realising the limitations of that, I did some more reading of his works and wondered what to make of this?
[LETTER 164 (A.D. 414) TO MY LORD EVODIUS]19. For who will dare to say that Jesus was put to death in His soul, i.e. in
the spirit which belonged to Him as man, since the only death which the
soul can experience is sin, from which He was absolutely free when for us
He was put to death in the flesh? For if the souls of all men are derived
from that one which the breath of God gave to the first man, by whom
“sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all
men,” either the soul of Christ is not derived from the same source as other
souls, because He had absolutely no sin, either original or personal, on
account of which death could be supposed to be merited by Him, since He
paid on our behalf that which was not on His own account due by Him, in
whom the prince of this world, who had the power of death, found nothing
— and there is nothing unreasonable in the supposition that He who
created a soul for the first man should create a soul for Himself; or if the
soul of Christ be derived from Adam’s soul He in assuming it to Himself,
cleansed it so that when. He came into this world He was born of the
Virgin perfectly free from sin either actual or transmitted. If, however, the
souls of men are not derived from that one soul, and it is only by the flesh
that original sin is transmitted from Adam, the Son of God created a soul
for Himself, as He creates souls for all other men, but He united it not to
sinful flesh, but to the “likeness of sinful flesh.” For He took, indeed, from
the Virgin the true substance of flesh; not, however, “sinful flesh,” for it
was neither begotten nor conceived through carnal concupiscence, but
mortal, and capable of change in the successive stages of life, as being like
unto sinful flesh in all points, sin excepted.
This does seem to suggest he believed in 'original sin' in the way in which it is commonly understood.
Yet, we are made in the image of God, and the process of theosis sees us become more like that real self; so where is the original sin?
It is a puzzle. How does Orthodoxy approach this thorny thicket?
INXC
John
Augustine is revered for his example of repentance - not his doctrinal or theological writings. Although we receive his example and honor him for that, Orthodoxy does not generally accept Augustine's theological writings as authoritative.
Fr David Moser
Yet, we are made in the image of God, and the process of theosis sees us become more like that real self; so where is the original sin?
It is a puzzle. How does Orthodoxy approach this thorny thicket?
INXC
John[/QUOTE]
Hi,
I am sure that you can find a thorough explanation of the Orthodox belief on original sin on this site, but if you want it in a nutshell:
I was taught simply that we suffer the consequences of the original sin, but that Adam and Eve were responsible for their own sin. So we don't carry the guilt, we just have to deal with the results.
If I am mistaken, please correct.
In Christ,
Tanya
Dear Father David/Tanya,
Many thanks.
I had understood that what you say, Father David, was the Orthodox position on St. Augustine, but what I was unsure about was why this was the case? His thought has had a major influence upon the western churches, and I was interested in discovering more about how Orthodoxy escaped this. Are there any Orthodox examinations of Augustine's thought?
One reason for citing the passage from the letter to Evodius was that it would seem to have Christological implications, and I wondered what Orthodox patristic scholars might have made of it?
When you write, Tanya, that
you hit on precisely what has always puzzled me.I was taught simply that we suffer the consequences of the original sin, but that Adam and Eve were responsible for their own sin. So we don't carry the guilt, we just have to deal with the results.
Why is it that we suffer for the sake of sins committed by Adam and Eve? If by this we understand matters in an allegorical sense, then we can rest with the exegesis provided by those such as St. Cyril, who seem to have seen the sin of our first parents as an allegory for our own propensity to yield to our baser passions.
I come at this as an Anglican who has always struggled with St. Augustine's legacy. It has always seemed to me that his early Manichaeism is evident in this part of his thinking, and that Orthodoxy has a much healthier relationship with the human condition as a result of not taking Augustine's conception of Original Sin on board.
Was it simply not considered because of the historical circumstances? Or is there an Orthodox view (or views) on him? Peter Brown's great biography is written entirely from a western standpoint, and isn't much help here.
So, if anyone can provide enlightenment or point to where it might be found, I should be grateful.
INXC
John
Hi John,
There is an article titled "Ancestral Versus Original Sin" on St. Mary Orthodox Chuch, Cambridge, MA website. It looks at Augustine's introduction of the concept of original sin. Sorry, due to my lack of computer savvy, I can't link it for you here.
Hope this is helpful.
In Christ,
Tanya
brother John Charmley asked a very good question , sister tanya also referred to a puzzle , more and more wondering.
ok , what I taught too - and it makes sense at least to me- is what did Tanya say , and that was the Orthodox teaching , we are treated from the consequences of Adam's sin , not the guilt . what I understand - and it is my personal opinion , which can be incorrect - the problem is between two terms , the corrupted nature which is the consequence of adam's sin , and the guilt itself.
if I'm correct, st.Augustine gathered both : consequences and guilt. I think the problem is not in here , the problem is in the development of his writing , tome of aquinas and Anselm archbishop of canterbury in the 11th century began to develop and stress on the concept of guilt in the west. meanwhile , the east ignored by time this concept , any way , I'm still confused .
I believe that the guilt itself meant the corruption of human nature. I was wondering if the term ' original sin ' was used by the fathers before the 5th century . St.Athanasius says in his treatise on the incarnation of the word:
"it was owing that all should die, for which especial cause, indeed, He came among us: to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all. "
I think , our Lord's redemption was not only for the consquences only , but for human guilts ... our daily guilts and sins . Eucharist's power in forgiving sins is provided by the fact that it is the body and blood of our lord which was on the cross for us . ok , but what is the old trespass according to st.Athanasius ?
I believe there is a fixed orthodox vision to this sensitive issue . and if any one permits, I still insist on my question : is the term "original sin" an orthodox term? thanks for your care
in IC XC
Mina Mounir
Why is it that we suffer for the sake of sins committed by Adam and Eve? If by this we understand matters in an allegorical sense, then we can rest with the exegesis provided by those such as St. Cyril, who seem to have seen the sin of our first parents as an allegory for our own propensity to yield to our baser passions.
I come at this as an Anglican who has always struggled with St. Augustine's legacy. It has always seemed to me that his early Manichaeism is evident in this part of his thinking, and that Orthodoxy has a much healthier relationship with the human condition as a result of not taking Augustine's conception of Original Sin on board.
I think we have to be very careful here. A reading of the western Fathers shows us that very early on they were using expressions that seem more juridical compared to the eastern Fathers. I think that in most cases however this didn't mean any fundamental difference but more just a different way of dealing with these issues.
Original guilt I think is one of these differences. There are the Augustinian mistakes from exaggeration at times. But more often & even with St Augustine most of the time the difference is more one of what one stresses or maybe how a point is made. (eg guilt refers to the guilt we share from the primordial sin of Adam & Eve; ie we all stand accused for this common sin & only Christ's act of self-sacrifice can absolve us of this guilt.)
We need to keep in mind however that it is Patristic to acknowledge how we all share in the sin of Adam & Eve. The Eastern fathers at times stress the personal aspect of this- while the Western fathers may stress something more juridical; but still either way one puts it, it is meant in the sense of how we share in a common sin with cosmic effects which only Christ as the God-man could heal or absolve us from.
Thus no matter what we call it; and often this was just called 'the sin of Adam'; we mean something far more than the sin of Adam & Eve which at some point in infancy we begin to personally share in due to personal choice. This or any understanding which implies this is not complete or Patristic.
For the Fathers were acutely aware of the cosmic effects of sin on us & of how it has debilitated our free will to the extent that, yes- we are enslaved to sin. Personal sin may describe the mode by which we fall into original sin & it may describe our responsibility for this sin. But none of this is meant as denying the cosmic effects of this sin and of how at birth (probably right from the womb) our personal mode of willing is already severely inclined to sin. To overlook this would be to fall into Pelagianism.
Of course however the Fathers would not end the story with sin. Rather precisely due to the cosmic, debilitating & personal effects of sin on man & creation, the fathers also understood how only in Christ could freedom be found. In other words the personal aspect of original sin which we so often comment on, is of no effect whatsoever (unless our aim is to be like mice that go around & around on their wheel eternally and never get anywhere) unless Christ is also put into this picture.
Original guilt? Maybe here also there's more to account for than we are used to seeing. After all St Isaac prayed for reptiles; as he makes clear, this kind of prayer only comes from a sense of ones own fundamental sinfulness.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Dear friends,
Above, John wrote:
Yes: when I mentioned otherwise, I was referring to the canon of the Council of Orange provided by Mr McIntyre. Certainly Augustine speaks of primal sin in the sense that most people understand 'original sin'. Indeed, many go so far as to call this 'Augustinian Original Sin'; though I always find this somewhat unfair to Augustine, since he tended to treat the subject in less static and concrete terms than do most people who 'follow his thought' today ('an Augustinianism that would cause Augustine to roll over in his grave', as one scholar has termed it).
In some sense, Augustine's real point in speaking of sin as a thing inherited, a thing transmitted, is to provide an ascetical mandate for purification and sanctification (themes that have not always been attributed to him, though which are clearly present and becoming more widely known). Augustine's goal is not, in intention, to disfigure the image borne in man, but to demonstrate that the image which rests truly in human nature is profoundly disfigured through sin -- to a degree that is not simply a 'see-and-do' series of effect. That is, sin effects man more deeply than by being a series of external influences to which we react, however poorly (this was how he read Pelagius' view of sin); rather, it is something in the bones, in the blood -- never our authentic humanity, but something far deeper than mere accident. Hence there is a kind of 'ontological mandate' for a real repentance and fierce asceticism, which for Augustine thereby amounts to a transfiguration of our nature, rather than just our habits.
Fr Raphael's post below makes some excellent comments on these themes.
INXC, Matthew
Dear Matthew,Indeed, many go so far as to call this 'Augustinian Original Sin'; though I always find this somewhat unfair to Augustine, since he tended to treat the subject in less static and concrete terms than do most people who 'follow his thought' today ('an Augustinianism that would cause Augustine to roll over in his grave', as one scholar has termed it)
Thank you for your very interesting comments, which, taken with those of Fr. Raphael, provides much in the way of illumination.
I cite the passage above because I wonder whether there is something in it we might explore - namely the question of labels.
One of the tropes of modern scholarship is to emphasise complexity and nuance, and with it the inadequacy of traditional labels. Augustine was not Augustinian, Nestorius was not Nestorian, the Antiochene School was neither Antiochene nor a 'school', and the same applies, mutatis mutandis, to that of Alexandria; indeed, if St. Cyril's thought can be accepted as Cyrilline, that is only by virtue of its suppleness and complexity. Along the same line of thought we see that the 'Monophysites' were not monosphysite, and the diophysites were not diophysite.
In good scholarly fashion we quietly emphasise the nuanced nature of what is being read and what was written (not, of course, always the same thing), and thus help to dissolve old barriers and, with good fortune, to build new bridges. We seek to broaden and deepen understanding by promoting renewed attention to what was written, rather than accepting what has been written about what was written - or so it might seem.
At times this can appear unsettling to those whose access to patristics and theology has come through older traditions of writing and thinking about these things; it may even, at times, appear as though one is being as paradoxical as St. Cyril himself, who liked the challenge of saying that God suffered in his impassibility, and was much misunderstood thereby, not least by those who could not follow his train and type of thought.
But even as we suggest more nuanced and subtle way of reading the Fathers, we come back to the question of what that means. St. Augustine's works are so voluminous that few scholars could claim to have read them all; much of the discussion of his thought centres around a corpus of familiar texts - and even then we can say that he is revered in Orthodoxy for his example rather than his theology. As you have pointed out, Matthew, St. Cyril has been more read of late than at any time since his own time, except, perhaps, in certain parts of the Alexandrian tradition.
Two questions follow from this sketch of a train of thought:
- as we question old labels, do we need to think of providing new ones? After all, labels are there for a reason.
- as access to the works of the Fathers becomes easier than it has ever been, do we see the teachings of the Fathers more fully than has been possible hithertofore?
INXC
John
Dear John and others,
In response to John's above post on labels in theology, etc., I've created a new thread for that discussion, as it looks to hold the potential for some interesting discussion. You'll find it now at: Tradition, Scripture, Intellect and Experience > Theology and labels.
This will allow us to keep the present thread for the specific topic of original sin.
INXC, Matthew
Greetings Everyone,
May Our Blessed Lord's be with you always.
My questions rises from the fact of the unestimable value of the Passion, death, and Ressurection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If one can assume Original Sin existed from our first parents, up to the time of The Lord's Resurrection; who, by His supreme sacrifice, was victorious over the reign of death and completre seperation from God, how can this Original Sin still exist in humanity after His Triumphant Resurrection? Is not this pledge of future glory brought about once and for all? Why does the Church still need to see within created humanity an inherent flaw that needs to be cleansed in every future generation?
I've always wondered about St. Augustine's beliefs of Original Sin and Original Guilt, and how it can be interpreted so as not to lead to some of the later Western innovations.
I've had discussions on this before, but I am no Augustinian scholar, although I wish to be some day. St. Augustine is a personal favorite of mine, due to his influential life of struggles.
I've personally come to these definitions:
Original Sin--corruption of will/body and the susceptibility to sin.
Original Guilt--our unworthiness due to the corruption we are born in before our baptisms
In Orthodox teachings, baptism is not just an erasing of "Original Sin" but a life of unity with Christ, and subsequently, with the Holy Trinity. We become part of the Church of Christ, the mystical body of Christ through baptism.
By "Original Guilt," I've come to see it mean as the same as when we say "no salvation outside the Church," or "no salvation outside unity with Christ." Thus, while it sounds juridical, it's taken as a contemplative manner, not literally. It's like saying that God is "angry" to sin. Well, as long as one doesn't take that literally, it is true, and quite Biblical, just as God "smells" the aroma of incense sacrifice in the OT.
Many others later like Anselm took this to a terrible extreme I believe, but I may misinterpret them or I may be missing something if anyone could help. I totally disagree with the belief that when we sin we take away God's honor or glory. And there's also the "infinite sin" or "infinite offense" belief that requires an "infinite sacrifice" to which I struggle to reconcile into Orthodox belief.
How can one take this contemplatively and not literally? Somehow, this seems to me more likely as taking Augustine's contemplations and allegories literally.
What do you think?
God bless.
Mina
Posting Permissions
Reply with Quotation
Bookmarks